[CuRRent MooD:] Fine
[CuRRent Song:] None
[Last FooD/BeveRage:] Spicy Chicken Noodle / Pearl Milk Tea
Case in topic: Retrial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset ends with massive fine imposed on her
Links:
Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty - with links to the whole retrial at the end
Analysis: $1.92M fine in music piracy case could hurt RIAA
What began as a first trial with damages linked to $220,000 becomes $1.92 million worth of damages awarded to RIAA on the retrial - something that we can imagine when linking to an internet crime or stealing of music - but all for 24 songs being shared out from the defendant's PC. 24 songs for 1.92 million? I'm pretty sure my dear Emil Chau does not need to work for subsequent lives ahead if money can carry over to next lives.
Right view of case: She did share out 24 songs, in the case they mentioned are downloaded copies and does not have a legal copy of (means she does not own a copy of the CD or purchased from authorised sources). In prosecutor's view, these 24 songs are potentially shared amongst thousands of users, leading to a slapping of a fine of $80,000 per song and thus amounting to $1.92 million. So yes, she did commit a crime by downloading and sharing the songs, in law and ethics she's wrong.
Opposing view of case: 24 songs for $1.92 million? That's like saying being fined millions for stealing a CD, or hang on the rope for stealing (ehm, sounds like some other country does it). Even for the first case, fining $220,000 for 24 songs on a commoner sounds insane. How long will it take for me to pay $220,000, let alone $1.92 million? It's obviously pushing the defendant to bankruptcy. People mentioned she could be jailed, but based on what I read, this is a civil case and not criminal, thus liable to fines. I think a sane, normal person prefers to be jailed for this one.
Debating view of case: People are not talking about defendant being "innocent" or "guilty" but more of the $220,000 or $1.92 million. I think there's a lot of holes in this case, since the defendant claimed she did not see the warning messages that Kazaa (this was the p2p software that caused her problems) gave her. Some would think she's on purpose to feign innocence by claiming she was not using the PC, or she did not receive warnings, thus being slapped with such a fine...but $1.92 million is overly ridiculous. If they doubled or tripled the original, say $660,000 just to remind her that evidence shows she did commit a crime and re-emphasizing the power of the law, it sounds sensible but...almost 2mil? It's almost 10 times the fine imposed on the first trial to a commoner!
Oh well, after seeing all the evidence and stuff, while I won't say she's right, but certainly the amount is ridiculous.
.LuKe.
No comments:
Post a Comment